Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Olly Glover ExcerptsThursday 29th October 2026
(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 View all Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2026 - (29 Oct 2026)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Ben Hopkinson: I completely agree that the UK has a long historical challenge with delivering infrastructure cheaply and quickly. HS2 is the most expensive railway ever built, and the Bakerloo line extension will be one of the most expensive underground lines ever built. Tramlines are double the cost here compared to other European countries. We have the most expensive nuclear power plant ever built. There is a real long-term failure to build infrastructure quickly and cheaply.
On the Bill, it is good that we are getting private financing in, and that will help ease some of the burden on the state, when we are already pushed up against our fiscal limits. As I have mentioned, I have a little concern about the incentive structure, especially insofar as the private constructor has incentives to escalate costs as much as they can get away with under the ORR. A concession model might work a little better.
Sam Dumitriu: One of the important things when it comes to infrastructure delivery is ensuring you have a pipeline of projects, you know what you will build next and you can plan appropriately. We have many reasons why, in the UK, those pipelines get knocked about. Sometimes you have a road that you want to build, and everyone wants it built, but someone has brought a lawsuit against the road and it is delayed by a year. That makes planning for that really challenging.
One of the other problems is that sometimes those delays mean that you get pushed into different funding windows—the Treasury can reopen conversations about value for money, especially when in every Budget someone is trying to squeeze things into the fiscal rules and moving things from one period into another period, and cost-saving measures that are really delays. Those things tend to happen, and have happened for ever.
One thing that was really impressive under the last Government was the road investment strategy approach, which essentially said “We will set out a strategic case for all the big roads we want to build, we will give a pot of money and then we will give a delivery body the freedom to execute that.” The freedom to execute was slightly constrained by the planning system and all those delays, but fundamentally that is a very good approach. The challenge comes when the money is not quite there from the public purse, in part because the fiscal situation is tighter, but also because different choices are being made. In that case, private finance can fill the gap and ensure that you have a much more stable pipeline. I am in favour of that aspect and I think that will speed up delivery.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Ben Hopkinson: It is a good question. First, in the French example, I am well aware that it is quite expensive to drive on a French motorway. On the other hand, they have many more miles of motorway, and if it is too expensive you can take the equivalent of an A road for certain journeys. Judging by the number of people who drive on French motorways, I think people are generally willing to accept the costs, especially given that they have built many more miles of motorway just this century than we have in total.
I could be proved wrong if it works really well, but the main challenge with the RAB model is the sheer uncertainty of whether the ORR is up to the task and has the right staff in place. It has never done this before. I know there have already been some concerns about capacity issues and general commercial experience within the ORR. I would be concerned if the private sector had large commercial control and contract teams and the public sector did not have them and was out-negotiated. That is certainly possible if civil servants are not able to properly push back on price increases.
I think the fundamental incentives in a RAB model are not right for delivering one-of-a-kind, unique pieces of infrastructure. It works a lot better for infrastructure that has very clear unit costs—for example, the cost of laying 100 metres of pipe. That is good because a regulator is clearly able to understand how much 100 metres of pipe costs to lay and can apply that across its base, whereas the cost of one lower Thames crossing is up in the air. Some additions from the private contractor might seem sensible; they might get away with that. Having a more environmentally friendly construction process certainly seems sensible on the face of it, but that also adds cost. I would want to be reassured that the ORR is up to the task and has both the capacity and the know-how to properly understand the arrangements it is entering into.
Sam Dumitriu: You mentioned price gouging. It is important to work out what the main risks are. Roads are, in most cases, natural monopolies, and the best thing about being a monopoly is a quiet life. It is not necessarily that you have all these opportunities to gouge your customers; it is that the lack of competition means you are not forced to adopt cost-saving measures, or become more customer-friendly and so on. You might have a situation where various people are claiming quite high margins or they are being aggressive in that sense, but the UK has the other problem, where people are not on it around costs. They are not working out what the best structure is to ensure that costs keep falling.
On Ben’s point, one possible way of resolving the issue is quite a radical reform that is probably beyond the scope of the Bill. I have always wondered whether it makes sense for the UK to have Ofgem doing RAB regulation for energy networks, Ofwat doing it for water, the ORR for road and rail and Ofcom for telecoms, or whether it makes sense to have a specialist economic regulator that deals with the costs of natural monopoly networks. That would have a bunch of advantages. It would potentially resolve some of the revolving door problems that you might see. It would also ensure that there is a similar expertise and a standard approach. You do not want varying approaches between all the regulators, because that suggests that they are doing something wrong when you have essentially the same economic problem to solve. As I say, however, that would be far beyond the scope of the Bill.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I will thank the witness for his evidence and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Will Godfrey and Matt Palmer gave evidence.
Justin Madders
Do have anything to add, Mr Godfrey?
Will Godfrey: I would reiterate the point that the development consent order tightly defines the scope of what is being delivered. As Matt said, the project is already well advanced.
There are a few other points to bring up. Getting the cost forecast right, which underpins the allowed revenue for the first control period, is really important. That is the baseline against which you are holding the company to account. The instruments thereafter are what you specify in the licence, and that is really important to get right. That is not stuff you put in the Bill, but it is really important that you get it right in the licence and that you have the right incentives for the privately financed entity to deliver against that schedule. You need to make sure that the balance in the allocation of risk is right and that end users are ultimately protected from the risks of cost overruns.
As I say, this project is fairly well advanced already; it is not like we are talking about starting one from scratch.
Olly Glover
Q
Will Godfrey: I think the ORR’s role, as envisaged in the Bill, would not be to advise on those questions. That would be more of a question to address to Government. It is perhaps relevant here that it is important to take account of the risk-adjusted cost of financing. You have already made the point about whether things are on the balance sheet or not. Another point to bring in is the certainty around the funding and delivery arrangements. RAB-based price controls are a commitment to a certain cycle of, typically, five-year reviews in which you set the funding requirements, the price control limits and what is delivered in that period. You reset each time but the point is that it is not potentially subject to Government reopening the arrangements for the funding, which is sometimes encountered in other publicly funded arrangements. I think that is as much as I am able to say. That is more of a question for Government.
Olly Glover
Q
Matt Palmer: If you talk specifically about the lower Thames crossing, its strategic case is incredibly strong and it was introduced by Government to be built because of the broader economic benefit for the country. There is a mixture of models that the Government could choose to fund it. There was a discussion about concessions and RAB-based models earlier. They will all carry the same carrot and stick for driving cost performance. In the end, it is the Government’s decision to bring a project forward. If it is of a strategic nature then this Bill will allow you to fund it.
Olly Glover
Q
Will Godfrey: One distinction I would draw with the Railways Bill is that that Bill was so significantly concerned with the creation of Great British Railways, which will be responsible for something like 75% of all traffic on the network—not quite the whole market but a very significant proportion of the market. People are therefore understandably keen to see what arrangements are in the licence for that entity. This Bill is enabling and economy-wide. Clearly, the main project that we are talking about currently is the lower Thames crossing, but in principle several other licensed entities could be out there. That is one distinction that I would draw.
As to whether a particular licence is essential to inform the scrutiny of a Bill, my feeling is that the Bill gives you, as a regulator, the kind of duties, functions and powers that you would expect. On the licence, clearly there is work to be done there, but one advantage is that the licences will be put out to competitive tender. That provides a different level of scrutiny from the arrangements under the Railways Bill, in which the licence is awarded to GBR as the given entity that will receive it.
Tristan Osborne
Q
“There are, however, likely to be gaps such as those relating to construction phase price controls, project specific
I know you said that you had confidence in that area, but that report was published just last month. Can I get some clarity? Are you saying that the report is not entirely right and that you are confident that the three aspects it raised will be covered going forward?
Will Godfrey: We very much welcome that independent review of the ORR. It is always helpful to have that sort of outside-in look and scrutiny.
On what it describes as gaps, the other point that Dr Richard Judge brought out was that we are not building from scratch, so this is about providing incremental capacity. I think he was right to draw out those areas as ones where you would want to make sure that the gaps have been filled by the time you are past Royal Assent, the first licence has been awarded and you are into the start of the first price control, which is a long way from today. The point I am making is that, from the discussions I have been having with the Department, I am reasonably confident about being able to resource what I would describe as incremental gaps, rather than starting from a blank sheet.
Olly Glover
Q
Andrew Truscott: My biggest concern about this project is the ultimate cost to the end user. That is a piece of maths that we all, collectively, need to get right, because we cannot end up with a wonderful project that unfortunately saddles the user with an uneconomic toll for the next 50 or 60 years. How can we manage that? We can manage it by, obviously, trying to keep the cost of construction as low as we possibly can. Other things in our toll roads and our businesses globally include dynamic tolling, where we encourage road use by differentiated pricing depending on the time of day—I would love to explore that with the Government at the right time—and differentiation for different types of vehicles. I think there is a way of getting the end users’ experience to be a little fairer than if there was just a flat toll.
In terms of the overall costs and delivery, obviously, the cost of financing at the moment is as high as it has been in my career. That is a factor that we all have to be aware of. I am sure you guys all know this, but infrastructure is a diversifier in pension fund portfolios. We are a spread to the risk-free investor. That is how we calculate our returns, so unfortunately, as risk-free rates go up, the expectation of the returns on our capital also goes up.
Innovation around how we can collectively deliver a financing package against that backdrop that is as cheap and deliverable as possible is also quite important. How do we do that? Certainty of outcome, high-quality regulation and ensuring that everybody who commits capital understands the limits of their capital and is therefore able to calculate their returns accordingly.
Olly Glover
Any thoughts from you, Mr Forsdyke?
Roger Forsdyke: Not on the subject of financing; it is outside my experience.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Andrew Truscott: I would slightly reject your first statement, if I am honest. As an infrastructure investor, we provide, candidly, the lowest cost private capital that is available across the world. If you are attracting John Laing and people like us, I can guarantee that you are getting the lowest cost of equity capital that you can possibly attract and therefore the risk transfer needs to be accordingly appropriate.
I will slightly repeat my opening comments: when we first started interacting with DFT about this project, I was quite nervous about the RAB model. I am not a RAB nerd; there are lots of RAB nerds, and I am not one. RAB can be incredibly complicated, and it can take a huge amount of time to drill down. There is not a regulator. There is an awful lot of work that needs to be done. Am I nervous that that is going to take longer than it should do or could do? Yes, I am, but again, credit to DFT and the Treasury, they seem to be well on track. Maybe the better answer to your question is that we as investors will need absolute certainty—and I mean absolute certainty—about what that regulatory model is, who the regulator is and how that regulation is going to work before we will put in a dollar, a pound, or a euro—whatever currency you like.
Jim Dickson
Q
Justin Madders: I understand why you ask that question. The Bill sets the framework for the RAB model, and that will establish the independent regulator. Its remit is clear, and it is there in the first few clauses of the Bill: to take account of the interests of road users. There will be fair pricing, transparency and long-term sustainability as a result of that. You will also be aware that there will be a stakeholder group in which users will have the opportunity to feed in. We have a pretty robust set of reassurances that I hope will satisfy you and your constituents.
Olly Glover
Q
Justin Madders: First, as it made clear, the Treasury will not fund the totality of the project, so we have to look at other models. There are different views about how that would work. If we want to compare it to the private finance initiative, which has been the major funding source for a number of crossings in recent years, costs under the RAB model tend to be lower.
Clearly, we have an independent regulator that will, as I have explained and you have heard in evidence, be able to limit cost recovery, to make sure it is economic and efficient. There will be regular requirements set out to review that under the licence. Ultimately, the Government will not be left, as they would be under PFI, with repaying a debt over many years. That might be off the balance sheet, but it still ends up coming to the taxpayer.
Olly Glover
Q
Justin Madders: As this is a road, the Office of Rail and Road seems to be the appropriate regulator.
Olly Glover
Q
Justin Madders: There is a different approach because this is a different situation. This is the regulated asset base model, which is about a long-term investment, balancing the interests of users and investors and having a strong regulator that understands the sector. As we have heard, the ORR is already working on it. That is absolutely the right balance to make sure this delivers for everyone.
Olly Glover
That is an interesting answer, because railways also have both users and investors, but perhaps that is a debate for another day. I will happily let other people come in now.
Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)
Olly Glover Excerpts(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Steve Gooding: Our starting point would be that the right sort of duties are applied to the ORR in the Bill, in terms of having regard to the interests of road users and customers of this service. Of course, there are certain things that the Bill provides for that we have not seen yet: we do not know what the terms of the licence will be, we do not know what the terms of the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR will be, and we do not know exactly the ORR’s template will be. I am well aware that there is always a balance to be struck between what goes into those documents and what could actually be in the Bill. In principle, I think that the protection is there, but in practice, it might be sensible to have a bit more in the Bill and a bit less reliance on the other documents—but until you see the drafts of the other documents, it is quite hard to tell.
Edmund King: Clause 26 talks about tolls being “fair and transparent”. I think that we would like to have seen something built in there about affordability, because they can be fair and transparent, but can people afford them? In effect, the lower Thames crossing and Dartford will have a monopoly position. If you want to cross the Thames to the east of London, they are your choices.
When the M6 toll first opened, it was rumoured that the tolls for HGVs were initially artificially high and that the operators did not particularly want HGVs to cause wear and tear on the toll. I think that question of affordability is important, and it goes beyond cost: if people cannot afford the toll, they will use other, inadequate roads or go the long way around the M25, which is already vastly congested near Heathrow. I think something about affordability should be built in—perhaps linked to inflation; something more—so that the monopoly position cannot be exploited.
Olly Glover
Let me make a brief comment. On your point about some of the things that are dependent on the Bill, such as the licence, not yet being specified, we had a similar debate during the passage of the Railways Bill through the Commons. I think the Government ultimately decided to at least start publishing some of those things alongside it, so I hope the Minister might give some thought to that.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Q
One concern for them is that there might be perverse incentives via the tolling to use one crossing rather than another. Do you have views about how we could make sure that does not happen and what the ORR would need to do in negotiation with the licence holder? Do you have any views about local resident discount schemes, including how well they have worked elsewhere and whether they should be a necessary part of any future arrangement, although that may not be in the Bill?
Edmund King: Those are all relevant questions, even down to the time that the toll applies—is it 24 hours a day or 6 am to 10 pm, as it is currently? Are motorcycles free? What is the resident discount? Could there be a resident discount? We believe that there should be, because frequent users, such as those who live on one side of the crossing and work on the other, are already paying motoring tax in other ways, but is this a tax on jobs? Those issues are vital. It is also vital to get the support of local people, whether they be businesses or drivers. Giving those concessions would help win that support, particularly when we know that the construction period will cause a lot of congestion and adverse effects. Those are all valid points.
Steve Gooding: All I would add is that this is one of the challenges with creating an overarching framework in the Bill rather than something specific to the Dartford and lower Thames crossings. I do not doubt that in the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR, there will be explicit reference to the need not to create the sort of problems that you envisage and to set toll levels in such a way that manages the traffic flow between the two crossings, but we have not yet seen that.
Justin Madders
That is very helpful. I wonder whether the other two witnesses have anything to say from the other side of the road, so to speak.
Ben Garratt: It is a challenging calculation. Look at how much the logistics sector is currently paying to cross the Dartford crossing: it is about 40% of the road use but it is more because HGVs and larger vehicles pay more than that. We can assume they are paying over £100 million a year to cross it, as a rough calculation. The cost of congestion to drivers is about £200 million a year. We can add on to that—we do not have the numbers, but we know beyond that is the cost to wider supply chains and the cost of unreliability. We can make an assumption, thinking about the experience on the M6 toll, that the sector would rather pay up front for reliability than pay during the day for a lack of reliability, knowing that the costs for that are much bigger than the £200 million because of the impact across supply chains.
Declan Pang: The most important thing for our members is reliability. They want reliability and consistency of journey times. Congestion can be very unreliable, which drives a significant amount of cost into the supply chain, so that is, first and foremost, the most important consideration. Clearly, if we ended up in a situation in the future where we had multiple tolled routes, the cumulative impact of that situation would be deeply concerning to us, but I appreciate that the Bill is looking specifically at the lower Thames crossing.
Olly Glover
Q
Ben Garratt: There are features of the Bill about which we are not seeking amendment but seeking reassurances. For example, it must be ensured that there is a strong regulator for establishing the scheme and monitoring it going forward. That relates to the licensing conditions too. Therefore, we see value in there being a Bill setting a broad framework and including the regulator in that, rather than potentially doing things how they have been done in the past in the sense of having individual schemes. We would seek reassurances about the strength of the regulator in that space, and that it will think about freight and logistics when it thinks about economy.
We have heard from Michael about how the sector is voting with its feet—
Justin Madders
With its wheels.
Ben Garratt: With its wheels, indeed—in terms of using a toll road to improve reliability in that space. The risk of rolling this out to other roads was highlighted earlier. We would have concerns about that. That is why I mentioned that this is a particularly important route for UK trade. We would not want to see the powers in the Bill used to push out tolling much more generally without new capacity. There is language in the Bill about associating it with new capacity, and again, we would seek further ministerial reassurances that the Bill is focused on that and not widespread tolling.
Declan Pang: I would just add, in relation to the role of the ORR, the stakeholder group needs to be strengthened much more in terms of how it is described at the moment. There is no statutory requirement for a representative of freight and logistics to be in the group. Really, it is quite vague as to who would be sitting in it. In theory, you could have representatives from toll companies or from the DFT, for example, and exclude any industry or road users. Clearing that up and making the governance of that much clearer is vital. I agree with the previous witness who talked about having a more independent role for a stakeholder group, which would make it much more impartial.
Ben Garratt: We would concur with all of that.
Justin Madders
Q
Ralph Smyth: That is correct, yes. It is almost like an area that devolution has forgotten. We hear about the importance of roads; we heard about that from the previous witnesses, so it does appear a bit odd that there is not much there. One thing is that currently there is a duty, whether you are a local highway authority—county councils and so on—or the strategic highways authority, which is National Highways at the moment, to co-operate, but this Bill will create a new type of private highway authority and it will not join up. Some of the schemes that have seen funding withdrawn in road investment strategy 3 are very close to urban areas, and if they were funded via this route, that would not be an integrated approach and would be very different from what we are hearing about for the railways, where the Government have talked about the need for a single guiding mind.
Olly Glover
Q
Ralph Smyth: Very much so. There is the issue of crowding out. If there is certainty that there is going to be a road scheme, that makes it harder for a mayor or someone else to promote an alternative, such as a tram or a rail or bus upgrade. After this meeting, I am taking part in the mass transit taskforce, where perhaps those issues will come up.
Mike Reader
Q
Ralph Smyth: We heard a lot about regulation in the previous session. If you look at Ofwat and Ofgem, their income comes from lots of different companies. Whatever you might think of some of the water companies, at least that means diversity of income. You can compare that with the ORR. With nationalisation, now—or soon—all the money will be coming from the Department for Transport. It is similar for much of the road function. That is about National Highways. We are talking about only a very small bit if there is going to be only one toll scheme. If you put yourself in the shoes of an investor, would you be confident that that was an independent regulator if pretty much all its business came from one person—the Secretary of State for Transport?
Oral Answers to Questions
Olly Glover Excerpts(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I join you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to both Sue Holt and Mr Goldsmith.
There is growing interest in the issue of illegally modified e-bikes and their use, as is shown by comments in this House and in a Westminster Hall debate last week and by our new policy passed at last month’s Liberal Democrat conference. We need to ensure that e-bikes support, rather than hinder, the growth of active travel. The Minister has talked about the cross-Government working group, but will he commit to creating an action plan based on that work to tackle the issue, with clear timescales and owners? If he did, he would have our support.
Justin Madders
I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that there is already an action plan. We have identified a number of issues, building on some of the work and recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, and those will be fed into the cross-departmental working group. The Government hear what the hon. Member and, indeed, all hon. Members are saying about this issue: we need to make our roads safe. We need to get this plague of illegal e-bikes sorted out once and for all, and this Government are determined to do that.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
A £1 billion order for 29 new five-car, battery-electric trains for TransPennine Express was recently announced. While welcome, it has raised some eyebrows, with Modern Railways magazine estimating that the cost is nearly double that of conventional electric-only trains. It would cost a staggering £25.2 billion for similar deals to replace England’s passenger trains that have diesel engines. Are we on the right value-for-money track with this approach to rolling stock specification and procurement?
Heidi Alexander
I was delighted to be in Derby a few weeks ago to announce the new fleet of battery-electric trains for TransPennine Express. It is a £1.2 billion investment. Included in that are hundreds of millions of pounds of maintenance costs for the duration of that contract. We are working on procurements for both Southeastern trains and Northern trains at the moment. Value for money and affordability will be central to the decisions we make on those procurements.
Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for so eloquently introducing this debate and for revealing himself as a lifelong cat lover. One of the things I like about this Chamber is what we learn about our colleagues here. I have to say, if I had participated in a guessing game about some of the cat-loving Members we would hear from today, I probably would not have done very well—perhaps somebody could create one of those internet guessing games about MPs and whether they lean dog or cat. That would certainly be more savoury than some of the web applications there have been about Members of Parliament—I shall certainly not say any more about that.
I thank CatsMatter for all its hard work over many years to advance protections for cats, and the 189,192 signatories to this e-petition, including 334 of my constituents in Didcot and Wantage. I have never had a cat of my own, but I absolutely love them. I want to illustrate the very strong bonds that can be formed between humans and cats by talking about three of the cats that I have formed a strong bond with over my lifetime.
The first was called Henry. He lived primarily in another house in our cul-de-sac, but he liked to visit a number of people in the area, including us. He was a ginger and white cat. He was very friendly and intelligent, and he really enjoyed human company. He was an enormous source of companionship and comfort to me during some quite lonely and difficult times as a child and as a teenager growing up.
Where I lived a few years ago, the landlord’s cat, Puzzle, would come and visit quite often. She was quite old—I think she was 17 when she died—but you would never know it: she was full of energy and very chatty. When my doors were open in summer, she would enter and announce herself by miaowing very volubly. She was incredibly friendly.
I wish that anybody who thinks that cats are aloof or unfriendly could have met Puzzle. There was a little shop in the complex where I was renting, and when somebody would enter the courtyard she would run over, wanting to say hello to the people who were there—even children, and cats are not always the biggest fans of children. If I went too long before stroking her, she would start crawling up my leg, demanding more strokes; I was always very happy to give them, but occasionally the working day had to take priority. I learned of her death—not from being hit by a car, thankfully, but by natural causes—the same week that Putin invaded Ukraine, and it definitely added to the feelings of sadness.
The final example is my friend Freddie’s cat, Mr Whiskers. He grew up as a stray cat roaming the mean streets of Haywards Heath for much of his life until he was adopted. He became an indoor cat because he got feline immunodeficiency virus as a result of being a stray. However, he had to be given up for adoption because his owner acquired a girlfriend who had a cat allergy—a rather controversial decision. I am not sure I would have chosen a significant other over Mr Whiskers, but that is one for another time. Mr Whiskers is called that because he has very distinctive whiskers. He is a black and white cat and is very friendly and chatty.
We have heard some very powerful accounts, both from Members and from their constituents, of the strong bond that they have formed with cats. I have a constituent called Jenny who lives in Moulsford. She and her family had a cat called Mowgli, who was sadly hit by a car four years ago. The car did not stop and Mowgli was later found by a resident who was jogging through the village and recognised that the cat belonged to Jenny. He was only one year old, and Jenny’s daughters were devastated when they found out what had happened. That perfectly illustrates what many Members have said during this debate: cats are intelligent, are members of our family and have their own characters, and we can be absolutely devastated when we lose them, particularly in a manner as brutal as being hit by a car.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are sympathetic to the petition’s ask that we extend the legal requirement to report road traffic collisions involving animals to include cats. It is not right that when a cat is hit by a vehicle, there is no legal requirement for the driver to report the incident to the police. As a result of such accidents, injured cats can be left at the roadside without prompt veterinary treatment, causing unnecessary suffering. We believe that it is important to improve welfare and quality of life for household pets, while also ensuring that all animals are treated equally in legislation. We believe that, like us, animals can experience suffering, pain and fear. Experts in the field of neuroscience are confident that mammals, birds and many other creatures possess consciousness. If we accept animal sentience, then animal cruelty or accidents must be considered unacceptable. It is crucial that we change the law to better protect animals from harm.
As some Members have said, cats are also working animals. It is not just dogs who do that; the role of cats in pest control has been established for millennia and continues to be important to this day. I know that there has been debate about getting cats here in Parliament. That has been declined as a suggestion because people are worried that they could get stuck in nooks and crannies —although I think that perhaps we have underestimated their ingenuity for getting themselves out of trouble as well as into it. However, certainly those of us who have occasionally seen a mouse scurrying in the Tea Room or the Pugin Room would welcome cats here in Parliament. They would also be very good for our morale, and maybe we need to start a campaign for that as well.
The Liberal Democrats have already had success in improving pet welfare in this Parliament, with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) passing the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, which aims to protect animal welfare by restricting the importation and non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets.
I want to say a little about what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) said regarding an alternative approach advocated by Cats Protection. It is interesting that there is not necessarily unanimity among organisations that care passionately about cats that amending the Road Traffic Act is necessarily the sole solution to this challenge. As the hon. Lady said, the concern is that an amendment to include cats in the Road Traffic Act could force drivers to report collisions, but could also lead to various unintended consequences, for example, the imposition of criminal and civil liability on the owners of cats involved in collisions. I am sure that we would all agree that we would rather not open up another front of legal warfare—there are already so many as it is. Bringing cats into a framework designed for dogs and livestock could risk creating new legal responsibilities around containment, control and liability.
Cats Protection advocates an even bigger push on microchipping. It led the call, along with others, to campaign for compulsory microchipping. That was introduced in 2024 in England, and Cats Protection calls for it across the rest of the UK, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said, along with an important duty on owners to keep their details up to date so that the chipping system can work. It also advocates for scanning. Highways agencies in England and Scotland already collect, scan and notify owners about cat road victims, and the charity has published a scanning guide for local authorities.
Finally, there is more that we can do not just within legislation but beyond it, as good citizens. A driver who hits a cat should take them to a vet for emergency treatment, where they can also be scanned for a microchip. That is the quickest way to identify the owner. Those are some options for the Minister to consider in tackling the problem. I look forward to hearing his comments.
E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for setting out the case for regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters with great passion and conviction. She spoke very movingly of the loss of her constituent Jacob’s life, and highlighted the enormous geographical range of police forces that are concerned about this issue.
Hon. Members from across the country have also spoken with great thought on some of the key themes of the debate. First and foremost is the human impact of the problem of illegally modified and used e-bikes and e-scooters: not only the deaths and the injuries, but the fear that so many people feel, particularly people with disabilities or who are partially sighted, and the fact that pavements are no longer thought of by everybody as a place of refuge from motor traffic and somewhere that they can rely on to safely complete their journey.
Some hon. Members also highlighted the growing financial impact of the problem in terms of insurance payouts, where users of these vehicles who are not insured mean that everyone else bears the cost through increased premiums. They noted the problem of battery fires, which sometimes lead to loss of life, and rightly stressed the need for greater enforcement and for more support and resources for our police in dealing with the issue.
Part of the problem comes from the complexity of what an e-bike or e-scooter is or is not. A legal e-bike has pedal-assisted electric power up to a speed of 15.5 mph and no more. In some parts of the country there are long-standing trials of e-scooters, but in most places there are not, and that adds to the complexity. According to statistics from the Office for Product Safety and Standards, the vast majority of battery fires arise from conversion kits and unknown brands of e-bike, highlighting the need for much greater product regulation.
In 2025, London’s Metropolitan police seized more than 2,200 illegal e-bikes and e-scooters across London. In the first seven months of 2026 it seized more than 2,500—already exceeding the whole of 2025. In March 2026, a two-day enforcement operation seized 52 illegal e-bikes and mopeds. The London Fire Brigade reports that e-bike fires have doubled between 2022 and 2025, with most fires caused by illegally modified or designed e-bikes and their batteries. Many people see some food delivery couriers using e-bikes, sometimes illegally modified, in a reckless and inconsiderate manner.
However, there is also a great opportunity if we can get e-bikes right. In 2024, the UK sold just 2.1 e-bikes per 1,000 people, compared with 8.5 in France and a staggering 36.1 in Denmark. If we do not buck that trend, we are unlikely to achieve the continuation of cycling into older age that happens in the Netherlands, where e-bike travel accounts for over 50% of cycling distance in the 65 to 75 age bracket. There is an opportunity, as well as a problem that needs to be solved.
As well as the many hon. Members from many parties who have spoken on this issue, the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking conducted an inquiry into this issue last year and produced a very thoughtful and wide-ranging report. At the Liberal Democrat conference in September, which is still only last month—time is a very strange concept in this job—we passed definitive policy on the need to take much tougher action on illegally modified e-bikes. The strength of feeling in this room shows there is a widespread lack of confidence that the current Government are taking the co-ordinated and sustained action we need on this issue.
This is a multifaceted problem that straddles many Government Departments, and we know from many Select Committee reports and the Institute for Government that, alas, we have not always been good at tackling problems that straddle multiple Departments. Hopefully the Minister will give us some assurance that a multi-pronged, multi-departmental approach will be taken on this issue.
Our asks of the Government are as follows: first, we need to tackle the root cause, which is the supply chains. We need to make online retailers police and stop the sale of all non-conforming e-bikes, conversion kits, batteries and chargers, dealing with the problem at its source. We also need to deal with the perverse incentives created by the gig economy. The phenomenon of worker substitution makes avoiding individual identification and accountability too easy, while the pay-per-delivery model used by many of the delivery platforms incentivises reckless and illegal behaviour. Delivery platforms should be undertaking their own speed and e-bike checks. They need to take some responsibility for the issue.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Is the hon. Member aware that University College London published data this week indicating that almost three quarters of delivery riders surveyed are concerned about their own bike battery catching fire, while one in 10 had personally experienced overheating?
Olly Glover
Those statistics highlight the problem. The delivery companies need to take ownership rather than dumping the problem on everybody else, leading to the demonisation of their workforce, and expecting the Government to clear up their mess. They need to take action as well. If they will not, they need to be regulated much more toughly.
The Government also need to get on with legislating to regulate e-scooters clearly and consistently. The current postcode lottery of arrangements is unhelpful for everybody. We also need a Government-backed e-bike safety certification scheme, building on the action taken by the cycling industry to come up with its own kitemark to show that an e-bike is safely manufactured and compliant with legal standards.
Our police need much greater support. They need greater powers, they need more training on how to identify illegal e-bikes, and they need appropriate resources. We should also consider a national swap or amnesty scheme for illegally modified or designed e-bikes and e-scooters so that people can come forward. We heard from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about how seized e-bikes can be used for positive purposes. There are good examples of such amnesty schemes in New York.
The biggest reason why this needs to be tackled is the human impact, in terms of both deaths and injuries and the increase in fear and nervousness when using our streets.
Anna Dixon
I recently spoke to an A&E doctor in my constituency who had witnessed the rise in catastrophic injuries, particularly to children and young people. Does the hon. Member agree that we have to get to the source and ban conversion kits to stop these deadly bikes?
Olly Glover
I agree, and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the impact on our health service. There is also the economic impact on insurance. If this problem is not dealt with, there is a real risk that it will undermine the Government’s commendable aim to increase walking, cycling and wheeling, and all the resulting health and congestion-reduction benefits. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, and I hope to see the tough, multi-departmental action we need.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)
Olly Glover ExcerptsTuesday 20th October 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2026 - (20 Oct 2026)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm—it is not yet shared by those on the Government Benches, but perhaps that will come in time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Here we are with yet another Transport Bill Committee. People often say that transport is a boring, unsexy topic—
Olly Glover
Well, indeed. Yet the Government are dedicating so much legislative time to it, which rather undermines that thesis.
I also note that a number of Government Members have already served their time in Transport Bill Committee jail, and now they are here again. I hope that is a sign of investment in their futures, rather than a punishment, because some would argue that being on a Public Bill Committee sometimes feels like a punishing, if necessary, duty—although I am sure the Minister would not endorse such seditious sentiments.
I will defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on the substance of these amendments, but I will just say a little about the Bill as a whole and how I hope the Committee will operate. We broadly support a large amount of the Bill, but there are some aspects that we have concerns that. Perhaps there is a little too much faith being placed in the abilities of the CAA without enough oversight of it. We would also like to see some protections for consumers and the communities affected by aviation expansion. Of course, those communities include everybody on the planet, because of the significant environmental impact that aviation has, but I will say more on that as we as we go.
As for this Committee, of course, the normal arrangement is for the Government to reject all ideas that are not their own. At this stage, however, I lay down a challenge to those on the Government Benches: could it be different this time? The new Prime Minister has indicated his willingness to embrace Liberal Democrat ideas on occasion. For example, yesterday he warmly embraced our policy of banning people listening to things on their phone in public without using their headphones. I hope the new culture initiated by the Prime Minister will be embraced by the Minister and that the Government will perhaps accept at least one of our ideas in this Committee. That is my hope; we shall see if it happens.
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section may not reduce the standards of service and protection available to passengers and consumers of airport and air transport services compared to any provision which those regulations replace.”
This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section do not make provision setting out lower passenger and consumer standards than current regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations must include provision prohibiting a carrier from seating members of the same booking in such a way that any child under the age of 16, or any adult requiring care, is not seated adjacent to, or within immediate proximity of, at least one accompanying adult or carer included in that booking.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an "accompanying adult or carer" means a person who is—
(a) a parent or guardian of the child,
(b) a carer responsible for the child or adult requiring care during the journey, or
(c) any other adult who has legal responsibility for the child or adult requiring care,
and who is included in the same booking as the child or adult requiring care.
(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an "adult requiring care" means a person aged 16 or over who requires assistance or support from another person during the journey by reason of disability, illness or any other condition affecting their ability to travel independently.”
This amendment requires regulations to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, ensuring that young children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult or carer.
Amendment 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) Where regulations modify passenger standards, including but not limited to mandatory compensation provisions, and such standards depart from equivalent assimilated law or other EU aviation standards recognised by the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must ensure that the consumer protection afforded by the replacement domestic standard is equal or superior to the standard it replaces.
(3B) In making regulations under subsection (3A), the Secretary of State must keep passenger standards under continuous review to identify opportunities for enhanced consumer protection, and shall have a duty to implement such higher standards of compensation and protection wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so.”
This amendment ensures that if the UK diverges from EU aviation laws regarding passenger rights and compensation, the new domestic standards must match or exceed the level of protection currently provided by the EU.
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(4A) Before making regulations under this section for the purpose of aligning United Kingdom law with any provision of European Union law or any international standard, requirement or practice, the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining—
(a) the provision of European Union law or international standard, requirement or practice with which the regulations are intended to align,
(b) the reasons why the Secretary of State considers such alignment to be necessary or appropriate,
(c) whether, and if so to what extent, the regulations make provision that goes beyond such alignment, and
(d) the likely impact of the regulations on passengers, air transport service providers, airport operators and competition in the aviation sector.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement before making regulations under clause 1 for the purpose of aligning UK law with EU law or international standards, explaining the basis for alignment, whether the regulations go beyond it, and their likely impact.
New clause 14—Automatic Refunds: failure to honour pre-purchased seats—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic refunds for passengers who paid for specific seats on planes but who were then allocated different seats without their consent.
(2) The scheme must ensure that the refund specified in subsection (1) is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flight's planned departure date.”
This new clause would introduce a refund scheme for passengers who have paid for seats on plane journeys but who are then allocated different seats, without their permission, by the airline, and not require the passenger to apply for the refund manually.
Olly Glover
The amendments and new clause 14 are intended to strengthen the consumer and general citizen protections that the Bill has the opportunity to provide, should our amendments be accepted.
Amendment 24 would stipulate that regulations coming from the Bill cannot create lower passenger and consumer standards than currently exist. This is important because, whether we are debating information rights, delay compensation or the powers conferred on the Secretary of State, the test has to be the same: does the provision leave the passenger better protected or leave the door open to an erosion of the standards that they currently enjoy? The amendment does not seek to load new obligations on to the Government but simply asks that when Ministers use the powers that the Bill grants them, they cannot use them to quietly lower the bar. Where the Government take a power to make new regulations, the existing baseline of protection should not be capable of being diminished through that power.
This approach is not novel; section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires a Minister, before the Second Reading of any Bill touching environmental law, to confirm that it will not reduce existing environmental protection. If they cannot do so, they must say so and explain why. That single duty has kept the floor from moving. Air quality standards inherited from European Union law were carried through undiluted, and remain in force today.
Amendment 25 would put into law that family groups cannot be separated when travelling under the same booking, ensuring that children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult. In other aspects of life, when someone makes a booking and finds that they have been seated separately from their children or family, that is not considered acceptable; the booking has to be honoured or redress has to be made.
Even on other modes of transport, that is the case. For example, on a train, if someone reserves multiple seats in the same booking, the booking system automatically tries to seat the whole party together—although admittedly, on occasion, there is disruption, or CrossCountry decides to put on a four or five-car train, ruining all that, but that is perhaps another matter. Why do those arrangements not also apply to airlines?
This issue might be more common with some airlines than others, but they can currently get away with what they are doing because there are no restrictions. We hear far too many heartbreaking stories of passengers being treated in that way, and particularly of passengers with disabilities being treated as a lower priority.
We are glad to hear reports that the Government have been convinced of the case that we set out for this change in the House of Lords and are now considering consulting on scrapping any charges for being seated next to children under the age of 14. However, we really believe that this requires focus, so we very much hope that the Government will view amendment 25 favourably or otherwise indicate what they are going to do instead of accepting it. Subject to the Government not being willing to accept that principle, we will press amendment 25 to a Division.
Amendment 26 would require that, if the UK diverges from EU aviation laws regarding passenger rights and compensation, the new domestic standards must match or exceed the level of protection currently provided by the EU. For the reasons that I have outlined, it is important that we maintain our current standards as a minimum—of course, we want to increase them.
New clause 14 would support amendment 25 by introducing automatic refunds for a failure to honour pre-purchased seats.
Let me say something briefly about the Opposition’s amendment 7. I understand what the Conservative shadow Minister intends with the amendment, and I would be interested in hearing her case if it is about transparency and good governance; however, I feel there is a tendency on the Conservative Benches to table such amendments more when it comes to European Union matters than to others, which I find ironic given how often they accuse the Liberal Democrats of being obsessed with Europe. Perhaps they have a comparable obsession, but in a different direction.
I think I have said more than enough, and I look forward to hearing other Members’ comments.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak to amendments 24 to 26, amendment 7, which stands in my name, and new clause 14, which have all been grouped together.
Amendment 24 sets out an eminently sensible ambition, namely to ensure that any future regulations do not water down the passenger and consumer protections currently in force. That is an important principle and one that we recognise. Of course, as hon. Members know, the Opposition support a thriving, competitive aviation sector, but passengers must also have confidence that, when they travel, they will be treated fairly and the protections that they rely upon will be upheld.
That is particularly important for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Far too many people still face unnecessary difficulties when travelling by air, whether regarding the provision of assistance, the handling of mobility equipment or simply being able to travel independently and with dignity. Those matters deserve serious attention. As we—and particularly my Conservative colleagues in the other place—have consistently argued, accessibility should be considered from the outset rather than treated as an afterthought.
However, I have some reservations about binding ourselves to every existing regulation, particularly where certain requirements may create perverse incentives, impose disproportionate burdens or simply fail to deliver the outcomes that they were intended to achieve. We should always be in the business of retaining the flexibility to revisit and improve regulations where necessary, while ensuring that passengers remain properly protected. We welcome the overarching objective of the amendment, but given those concerns, we will abstain.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments. We are content not to press all the amendments, except amendment 25. The Minister has given some assurances about the Government’s future intentions, which are good but not quite enough. With the Chair’s permission, we would be a grateful for a Division on amendment 25.
Alison Griffiths
We would like to press amendment 7 to a vote. I do not consider the Minister to have sufficiently addressed our concerns around the reasons and impact of the provisions in the Bill.
Olly Glover
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations must include provision prohibiting a carrier from seating members of the same booking in such a way that any child under the age of 16, or any adult requiring care, is not seated adjacent to, or within immediate proximity of, at least one accompanying adult or carer included in that booking.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘accompanying adult or carer’ means a person who is—
(a) a parent or guardian of the child,
(b) a carer responsible for the child or adult requiring care during the journey, or
(c) any other adult who has legal responsibility for the child or adult requiring care,
and who is included in the same booking as the child or adult requiring care.
(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘adult requiring care’ means a person aged 16 or over who requires assistance or support from another person during the journey by reason of disability, illness or any other condition affecting their ability to travel independently.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment requires regulations to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, ensuring that young children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult or carer.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
There is a lot of talking from me about this part of the Bill. I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far. Clause 5 is another part of the Government’s objective of strengthening consumer protection in the aviation sector. It will give the CAA the tools it needs to enforce consumer law effectively.
The CAA’s current powers are not strong enough, and court processes can be slow and resource-intensive. The clause brings the CAA into line with other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, by allowing it to investigate breaches and take direct enforcement action where appropriate. That means that, when passenger rights are breached, the CAA will be able to act quicker and secure better outcomes for consumers.
The clause also includes mechanisms to ensure oversight of the CAA’s enforcement activity, which were strengthened in response to scrutiny in the other place. The Bill now requires the CAA to report on the use of the powers, and that information will be laid before Parliament, ensuing appropriate scrutiny and accountability. This measure will strengthen consumer protection in the aviation sector by enabling quicker and more effective enforcement, improving compliance with consumer law and giving passengers greater confidence that their rights are protected when travelling by air.
Amendment 11, tabled by the shadow Minister, would introduce an independent review of a CAA direct enforcement notice before the existing right of appeal to the courts is exercised. I agree with the underlying principle that organisations must have a clear and independent means of challenging the CAA’s decisions. That safeguard is important, but the statutory right of appeal already provides it. The amendment would instead add an administrative stage ending only in a non-binding recommendation. That could delay resolution and increase complexity, particularly where a party then proceeds to court in any event. It would also create an uneven framework by adding a review process for CAA notices, but not equivalent notices issued by other direct enforcers. There is no clear case for that distinction.
The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights in the first instance. Where its decision is challenged, the court offers independent scrutiny and a binding outcome. A further non-binding review would add process, not meaningful protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Schedule 1 gives effect to clause 5, which provides the Civil Aviation Authority with direct consumer enforcement powers. The schedule provides the CAA with the detailed investigatory and enforcement powers needed to exercise those functions. It enables the CAA to investigate suspected breaches, take direct enforcement action and impose penalties where appropriate, while also providing for appeals and reporting requirements. The schedule is therefore an essential part of the new enforcement regime established by clause 5, setting out the detailed powers and procedures needed for it to operate effectively, and I commend it to the Committee.
Finally in this grouping, clause 6 ensures that the CAA can effectively enforce existing safety and consumer requirements relating to air carrier identity. It does so by bringing existing legislation relating to air carrier identity requirements within the CAA’s consumer enforcement framework. This legislation sets out requirements for passengers to be informed of the identity of the air carrier operating their flight and requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of air carriers banned from operating in the United Kingdom. Clause 6 does not create new requirements for passengers or airlines; rather, it strengthens the enforcement of existing regulation, ensuring that passengers have the information they need and that measures designed to protect passengers and maintain safety standards can be effectively enforced.
Olly Glover
I want to say a bit about the Conservative amendment 11, which would introduce an independent review stage before an appeal went to the High Court or the Court of Session. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that it is a sensible amendment. We are somewhat perplexed by the logic of the Government’s not being keen on it, given that in the Railways Bill the Government put in an extremely high bar for any legal action against a decision taken by Great British Rail or the Office of Rail and Road.
Using the same principle, logic would suggest that the Government should welcome opportunities to avoid litigation and protracted court procedures—opportunities that, to us, would quite sensibly introduce an element of peer review to ensure that the enforcement action or notice taken by the CAA made sense before it got to the courts. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on why, given that context, he thinks this amendment does not make sense.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his support, and indeed the Minister for recognising that the underlying principle is absolutely the right one—that this is an important safeguard, to use his words. It is not administrative, as he argued; we should be ensuring that the CAA is not judge and jury.
Clause 5 and schedule 1 give the Civil Aviation Authority new enforcement powers, while clause 6 brings the existing rules on banned air carriers and informing passengers which airline will operate their flight within the consumer protection enforcement framework. We support those provisions and the principle of effective enforcement, but we believe that the process needs an additional safeguard for those affected by the CAA's decisions. As such, we have tabled amendment 11, which stands in my name.
The Opposition have tabled the amendment to ensure that there is a more sensible and balanced process for reviewing enforcement notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. As the Bill is currently drafted, the route for challenging these decisions is through an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session. I must say I think that that is quite unreasonable. Surely there should be an opportunity for an independent review of the decision before businesses are expected to embark on potentially costly and lengthy court proceedings. That is precisely what our amendment seeks to achieve.
We are simply suggesting that an additional check should be available, allowing an independent reviewer to consider whether a notice could be confirmed, varied or withdrawn before the matter proceeds to court. That would provide greater certainty and clarity for those affected, while helping to ensure that the process was fair and proportionate. Importantly, it would not prevent anyone from pursuing an appeal through the courts if they remained dissatisfied. It is an entirely sensible safeguard; I hope the Minister will now recognise the merits of the amendment and support it.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)
Olly Glover ExcerptsTuesday 20th October 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2026 - (20 Oct 2026)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The hon. Lady has always struck me as a master of the English language. I am sure she will therefore understand that the word “cap” does not refer to a target; it is an upper limit. There is no reason why it should induce an increase among those airports that do not feel the need for one, because those airports will have reached that decision for their own particular market. If she does believe that limits are targets, perhaps her party will withdraw its frequent opposition to such measures as 20 mph speed limits, because by that argument people only ever drive—or go—up to the cap, and therefore all other sorts of limits are harmless are well. I of course do not actually think that; I am just suggesting that is how one could logically extend her argument, if we are to view all caps and limits as in fact being targets, or incentives to hit them.
Alison Griffiths
Of course, the historical evidence is not in the hon. Gentleman’s favour. For example, universities charge education fees to the cap almost immediately, and the same is true of other things—market behaviour is such that that will happen. May I also correct his suggestion of the Conservative position on 20 mph limits? We do not want to get rid of all of them, only the blanket 20 mph limits. They need to be used precisely in order to meet their objective. That is why a blanket cap or ban makes no sense, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have already secured a review of these changes, and it makes sense to allow that work to take place before introducing further legislation .
Keir Mather
I will begin by responding to the shadow Minister. I am no physicist, but I know that a plane must fly on both its left and its right wing. I am very pleased therefore to see the consensus across the room today on the principle of a review of airport drop-off changes.
On a serious note, Members have raised a number of key themes which go to the heart of why a review has been deemed necessary by the Government. That is to ensure that when consumers travel through our airports and use the drop-off facilities, they can be assured that fairness, transparency and ultimately choice about their transport mode is at the heart of their travelling experience.
The shadow Minister was right to point to the special impact that drop-off charges can have on people with disabilities who travel. I would also focus on people who travel from rural communities to airports, who might not have the public transport access that they require. It is of course worth noting that airports provide bespoke drop-off locations for people with disabilities, but that brings us to another question about signage and access to those spaces. Those points were very well made, and those sorts of issues should form part of the discussion about how this system evolves.
Speaking to new clause 6, I have a particular question about freezing a cap in aspic, at around £5. Is it proportionate and is it enough? There was a point about disparity around the country, which is worthy of further discussion. Ultimately, I identify with the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about ensuring fairness and compliance with mode shift targets where public transport access to airports is poor. It is also worth reflecting on the shadow Minister’s contribution that actually a lot of planning requirements on airports need management of mode shift targets in a way that impacts directly on how those drop-off systems work. That is worthy of consideration.
Though we can have conversations about fairness, transparency and choice, drop-off charges are often used by airports to make very necessary improvements to their facilities and access. That is also worthy of consideration. The shadow Minister perhaps did not point to the work we have done more recently to facilitate airport expansion and modernisation, which helps the airport sector to grow. That being said, she is right to point to the fact that the cost stack faced by airports is of material concern, and therefore we have to be cognisant of what we do in terms of reviewing airport drop-off charges and think of them in the round when we consider how best to support the sector.
On that basis, there have been some great contributions by both Government and Opposition MPs speaking to the constituency impact of drop-off charges. The review will be designed to address some of those questions. I do have concerns about new clause 6, which mean that I cannot support it.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Directions about implementation
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 8, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—
(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,
(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and
(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.’”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Amendment 27 is intended to make sure that expansions of airports and changes to aviation and flight paths are done with, rather than to, communities, and that their significant environmental impact is taken into account. At this point, there would usually be chuntering from the Government Benches about we Liberal Democrats being nimbys. However, the amendment is intended to counter precisely such sentiments, which often originate from the feeling that major decisions on infrastructure and transport are taken apart from, and done to, the communities that are most affected.
The amendment is in part about communities directly affected by noise and air pollution from airports, including those in the densely populated area around Heathrow, as well as around Gatwick, Luton and many other airports. However, the environmental impact of aviation affects us all. Despite the Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026, there remains a long way to go before the aviation industry has a credible plan for decarbonisation. The amendment would make sure that where directions are issued, an assessment is made of their impact, so that people have the opportunity to see the decision making and make their voices heard. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Sadik Al-Hassan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Before entering this House, I spent nearly two decades as a pharmacist. That gives a person a particular view of the world, as staying up to date with technology, processes and drugs is crucial to saving lives, and that is, in part, why I support the Bill, including clause 8. Surely, if it is good enough for pharmacy, staying up to date, with modern rules, plans and powers, is good enough for flying.
Clause 8 will help with a problem that my North Somerset constituency, which is home to Bristol airport, knows only too well. With around 12 million passengers using the airport and a potential expansion on the horizon, we must reform and bring up to date the 1950s framework that governs our airspace. My constituents stand to gain the most from that, including less noise overhead, greater efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions and fewer delays.
As with all things, there is a cost to doing nothing. Without reform, flight delays are expected to rise by 200% by 2040. We must also do all we can to help to combat climate change. The establishment of the UK Airspace Design Service will deliver the resilience and efficiency that our airspace needs. The service has begun its work in London, but will the Minister consider Bristol as a priority for the next phase? North Somerset residents have waited long enough for an airspace that works for them.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak briefly to amendment 27 and clause 8. On amendment 27, the Opposition of course believe that local communities should have the opportunity to make their voices heard when decisions may affect them—that is an important part of the process. Consultation should be meaningful and, intrinsically, there ought to be sensible, local, proportionate mitigations.
I have concerns, however, about the additional requirements that the amendment would impose. The clause addresses the implementation of airspace changes, including those that have already been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. I question whether it is sensible to require further environmental and noise impact assessments before the Secretary of State can even issue a direction to implement those changes. Our aim ought to be to reduce the merry-go-round of regulation that impairs growth and investment; after all, modernising our airspace is absolutely vital to improving capacity, reducing delays, and ensuring that our airports can grow and expand. The last thing we should do is introduce further requirements that risk holding up improvements that have already been through the appropriate approval process.
Of course, local communities should have their voices heard and their concerns properly considered, but that must be done proportionately. We cannot allow endless assessments and procedural hurdles to strangle the growth of our aviation sector. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of local consultation and the intentions behind the amendment, I confess that I have reservations about the additional burdens it could create. For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain in any vote on the amendment.
Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to direct that approved airspace changes and the findings of airspace design reviews are implemented. We support the modernisation of our airspace, and we want to see approved changes delivered without unnecessary delay.
Olly Glover
I have heard the debate; perhaps we need to have a whip-round to buy the shadow Minister a house underneath the flightpath and see if her view would remain the same then. I would like to press amendment 27 to a Division.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 3 would call on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ban the practice of surveillance pricing when purchasing airline tickets. Many people have been in this situation: they look at the details of the journey they wish to take via plane, but when they go to book it a few hours later, the price has skyrocketed. It can often seem that flight prices change constantly, with no real rhyme or reason. Information on the extent of surveillance pricing is limited, but there have been some recent suggestions that airlines are using such methods.
Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming that it uses customers’ personal data to set ticket prices. That is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing: the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when that is occurring and how widespread it is, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using those methods. Using a different device or incognito mode on a browser to book flights are well known methods to get around this, but they are not particularly customer-friendly, and not everybody will have the tech savviness to do that.
The advance of artificial intelligence means that these types of systems are only set to become more advanced, likely in ways that we cannot currently imagine and without the necessary transparency for consumers to make an informed decision about what platform they buy from. We are not the only ones voicing concerns: as well as the lawsuit in New York, Colorado passed a Bill in May banning surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns about the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way. Tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger, although of course we understand the need for demand-based pricing. We believe that the Government need to look into this issue more, to establish how widely it is occurring and bring in measures to ban the practice, which runs counter to consumer interests. This is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for this new clause on surveillance pricing. Airline pricing should be transparent and fair, and consumers should have the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions.
Airlines operating in the United Kingdom are responsible for setting their own fares in a competitive market, but they must comply with consumer protection law and requirements on price transparency. Where pricing practices use consumers’ personal data, businesses must do so in accordance with data protection requirements.
The hon. Member is right to point to concerns that many Members and members of the public have about surveillance pricing. He is also right to say, however, that the evidence on its application is not complete. It is a fair challenge that perhaps we need to do more work to discuss this matter. Clause 1 allows for reforms to price transparency, should they be required on the basis of that work. For that reason, I do not believe that implementing this new clause at this moment is appropriate. I hope that this provides reassurance that this is a matter that we can take forward through discussion with colleagues across the House in the future, and that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw the clause.
Olly Glover
I am partially reassured by the Minister’s answer. I do not think the vote would be an enormous nail-biter, so I am content to withdraw on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Automatic Compensation
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic compensation for delays under Regulation (EC) 2004/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004.
(2) The scheme must ensure that compensation for delays is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flights’ planned departure date.”.—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would introduce automatic delay repay for UK flights.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Duty to provide information about flight delays—
“(1) An airline operator must provide passengers affected by a delay to a scheduled flight with timely, accurate and accessible information about that delay in accordance with this section.
(2) That duty requires the operator to–
(a) notify affected passengers of the delay as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of it;
(b) provide an updated estimated departure time at intervals of not more than 30 minutes until the flight departs or is cancelled;
(c) state the reason for the delay so far as the operator is able to do so;
(d) inform passengers of any rights to assistance, compensation or rebooking arising from the delay; and
(e) ensure that information provided under this subsection is accessible to passengers with a disability or impairment.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations–
(a) specify the minimum information threshold to which passengers are entitled under this section, including as to its content, form and frequency;
(b) impose additional requirements on airline operators in relation to delay information for passengers with complex travel circumstances;
(c) make provision about accessibility standards for the purposes of subsection (2)(e); and
(d) make provision about enforcement of the duty under this section, including by conferring functions on the Civil Aviation Authority.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires airlines operators to provide passengers with timely, accurate and accessible information in relation to delays and establishes the provision of a minimum information threshold to which passengers are entitled.
Olly Glover
New clause 4 would introduce the concept of automatic delay repay to flights. The concept exists in the rail industry, although admittedly it is somewhat inconsistently applied, as we debated previously during the Railways Bill discussions, which I am sure we all remember with great fondness and nostalgia.
At present, the law grants air passengers a right to compensation for significant delays, yet places the entire burden of securing that right upon the passenger. Passengers do not always find that a welcome experience. They must identify their entitlement, submit a claim and, in many cases, pursue it through dispute resolution or the courts. Anyone who has ever had to try to get compensation from an airline knows that it is often a long, hard-fought struggle to get what one is owed.
The scale of the issue is considerable. More than 45 million passengers departed UK airports between June and August of this year. Disruption over those three months is estimated to have cost in excess of £800 million. The consumer organisation Which? has found that airlines are retaining millions of pounds in unclaimed compensation, with thousands of passengers refused payment. Airlines already hold the information required: passengers’ identity, payment details and boarding records, and the precise arrival and departure times of the planes.
As I mentioned, the rail industry has demonstrated through delay repay that compensation can be processed automatically and at scale, for clear consumer benefit. A claims-based system disproportionately disadvantages those least able to navigate it—older passengers, disabled passengers, families with young children and those who may be less confident or have less access to digital services.
An entitlement that can be realised only by the most persistent is not an entitlement equally available to all. Passengers should not have to fight for what the law already says they are owed. It should be paid to them in full as a matter of course, except of course in the minority of cases where the delay may not be clear and so on.
Were I a betting man, I would predict the Minister saying that this legislation is not the appropriate place for this measure—if I have correctly anticipated that, perhaps he might say what he thinks of the idea and where else it might be explored.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 9, which seeks to establish a duty to provide information about flight delays. Passengers should receive timely, accurate and accessible information when their flight is delayed or disrupted. However, many of the matters addressed by this new clause are already covered by existing legislation and regulatory oversight. Airlines are already required to provide passengers with information about disruption and, where applicable, in accessible formats. The CAA monitors compliance with those requirements and recently conducted research on airline communications with passengers during disruption. The report looked at passengers’ preferences and made recommendations to airlines, and the CAA will work closely with industry to take those forward to improve passenger communications.
While the intention of this new clause is clear, it would create a new and highly prescriptive statutory regime, including requirements for updates every 30 minutes, regardless of operational circumstances. We do not believe that duplicating existing obligations is the most effective way to improve the passenger experience. Instead, our focus should be on ensuring compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the framework already in place, while retaining the flexibility under the Bill to introduce targeted requirements in future where evidence demonstrates they are needed.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak to new clause 9. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is seeking to achieve, and the principle behind this new clause is very sensible. Passengers deserve timely, accurate information when their flights are delayed and the industry should absolutely be doing everything possible to improve communication. However, I do have some concerns about the practical implications of requiring airlines to provide updated departure estimates every 30 minutes, particularly when delays are caused by circumstances outside their control, as we have seen with the recent National Air Traffic Services incidents. We must be careful not to impose additional costs and administrative burdens on airlines without being satisfied that those requirements are proportionate and deliver a genuine benefit to passengers. While the Conservatives strongly support its direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.
Olly Glover
My apologies; I should have covered new clause 9 when speaking at the beginning—that was my oversight—but both the Minister and the shadow Minister have summed it up well. All I would add on that particular new clause is that, while I understand what hon. Members have said, we are going to have to do something to improve this issue, rather than just hoping that the marvellous aviation sector sorts it. These are very long-standing problems. Technology, and information technology in particular, have moved on. It should be easier to do these things well. The Minister keeps referring to clause 1—goodness me, the heavy weight of expectation really does sit upon it; it will perhaps be the most impactful clause 1 there has ever been in a Government Bill, the way he is talking it up. We can keep an eye on that in future. I shall not push these new clauses to a vote, as we do have a few more to get through; I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
National Disruptive Passenger Database: Duty to publish proposals
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database.
(2) The proposals under subsection (1) should include, but not be limited to, provisions that would—
(a) facilitate airlines to share information on disruptive passengers;
(b) require airlines to notify the Government of an incident involving a disruptive passenger;
(c) alert participating airlines when a person in the database books a flight; and
(d) provide airlines with an option of refusing to carry passengers flagged by the database.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am up and down like a jack-in-the-box. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a national disruptive passenger database, for all the obvious reasons that we know of. Alas, when one is on a plane and there is a disruptive passenger, one tends not to have the luxury of moving to the next carriage, as one can on a train. One of the many advantages of rail travel is that fact that one has that freedom—although not always, of course, because trains are sometimes rammed or short-formed, and so on. I am not going to wang on for too long about this, because I believe that the Government have some good plans on this topic, and I will give the speaking time over to the Minister to hopefully tell us about them.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the Minister for his response. To conclude, although we welcome the debate that the new clause has prompted, and we recognise the importance of the issue that it raises, we will be abstaining, pending more information from the Minister.
Olly Glover
We have heard enough. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Passenger Luggage Minimum Sizing: Duty to produce regulations
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament regulations providing for ‘British Standard’ luggage for Air Travel.
(2) The regulations specified in subsection (1) must set out the following definitions—
(a) ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’, namely a hand bag or personal item form of carry-on luggage; and
(b) ‘British Standard Suitcase’, namely a form of large carry-on bag.
(3) Regulations made under this section must provide for a minimum size, both in terms of dimensions and weight, for both the British Standard Hand Luggage and the British Standard Suitcase, and require airlines to allow luggage which meets the definition of a British Standard Hand Luggage to be taken on board by passengers without charge.
(4) The regulations made under subsection (1) may permit airlines to charge passengers who wish to carry a British Standard Suitcase aboard, however airlines may not impose a restriction on ‘carry-on luggage’ which would be smaller than the definitions of a ‘British Standard Suitcase’.
(5) Regulations made under this section must establish a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet the definitions of either ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’ or ‘British Standard Suitcase’.”—(Luke Taylor.)
This new clause makes provision for a minimum standard for hand luggage and carry-on bags and establishes a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet those standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Taylor
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause returns to my overarching theme, and that of all of us, which is how to make flying slightly less horrible for all involved—for families, the disabled, those who need to drive to the airport. The new clause would take a huge step towards making flying marginally less stressful and, importantly, less expensive for anyone who brings hand luggage aboard a flight.
To explain the new clause as clearly as possible, I will start by defining the difference between the British standard hand luggage in subsection (2)(a) and the British standard suitcase in subsection (2)(b). Those admittedly somewhat overly theatrical terms simply act as minimum standards and not, sadly for any aspiring baggage entrepreneurs among us, as required suitcase models or dimensions.
Regulation EU261 has recently been agreed for passengers departing from inside the EU. That regulation will entitle passengers to carry a personal item that fits under the seat in front of them, which corresponds roughly to my British standard hand luggage item. Under EU261, that has a maximum dimension defined as 40 cm by 30 cm by 15 cm, adding up to 85 cm combined. EU261 also defines one piece of hand luggage, which corresponds roughly in concept to my British standard suitcase, as weighing up to 7 kg and requiring a maximum of 100 cm in combined dimensions.
We are all very aware that the UK is no longer part of the EU. Opinions on the wisdom of that may vary, but it means that British passengers may be entitled to a free cabin bag only when returning home on a carrier covered by the new EU regulation. For example, easyJet has confirmed that the changes will apply to flights returning from EU countries and not to departures from the UK. Passengers flying out of the UK will therefore not benefit from a free item of hand luggage, despite the new rules in Europe. The airline easyJet said that the rules will apply to UK passengers only on return flights.
That demonstrates the need for the new clause. It would avoid streams and streams of passengers potentially being fined by airlines on their way home to Europe, because of different rules on one leg of the trip from another. If we do not address the issue, we risk tourists being put off visiting our country due to the lack of parity, costing our fragile economy and hospitality industry huge amounts of revenue.
Today, we have already heard about how passengers run a gauntlet of fees, charges, fines and mistakes: as they travel from home, through the drop-off curve where they are forced to pay a charge or are fined; at check-in, where they may be forced to pay a fee to guarantee that they can sit near their children or to check a bag; and then at security, where they might have their perfume or purchased drink taken away if slightly over the limit. Having navigated our way to the gate, we can see the fragile aluminium or carbon-fibre tube, mere millimetres thick, which, together with the wings full of extremely flammable jet fuel, will convey us at 600 mph at 40,000 feet through storms and turbulence, lightning and rain, to a far-off land while we stew in 200 strangers’ halitosis and flatulence, surrounded by other people’s screaming children—while ours sit at the far corner of the plane, because we did not pay the fee to guarantee we would all sit together.
Before boarding, however, we must face the most terrifying hurdle of all: the gate agent and the handbag sizing frame. We look down and suddenly realise that we have packed our hand luggage in our easyJet bag, instead of the Ryanair bag—easyJet, alongside British Airways and Jet2, allow the most generously sized bag for large airlines, at 56 cm by 45 cm by 25 cm, which compares with 55 cm by 40 cm by 20 cm for Ryanair. The 1 cm-height, 5 cm-width and 5 cm-depth exceedance of that bag clearly means that it cannot fit on the 40-metre long aircraft I longingly gaze at through the terminal window. I shuffle forward with my bag. I am now past the point of no return, because I could have dealt with my error at check-in by paying £45-ish to check the bag into the hold.
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Regulatory alignment does not have to catch consumers out, and it can also provide regulatory certainty for business. Of course, the Government keep developments in the European Union under close watch and advisement, and I saw the ones made in relation to both baggage sizes and family seating. The beauty of this legislation is that it allows us, where appropriate, to align with European rules when it is in the best interests of both British business and consumers. He pre-empts a point that I was just about to make on clause 1, which, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage rightly reflected, has done a great deal of the heavy lifting: it allows us to make these changes once we have had time to consider matters carefully.
I have absolutely no doubt that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will continue to make a full contribution to those discussions. I do have sympathy with what he says, but I do not believe that now is the right moment to put what is quite a prescriptive regime on the face of this legislation. I thank him for what has been a very thought-provoking debate.
Olly Glover
One will endeavour to be brief; I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s ventures always succeed in that aim either. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam generally shows himself to be a champion of the aviation industry, yet his description of the experience perhaps undermines that brand.
I want to speak to new clause 11, which would introduce a passenger charter for air travel. My hon. Friend has talked about a micro example of some of the challenges of customer service in the industry; new clause 11 is more about the macro—the wider picture. Airline customer service is too often not up to scratch, as we have discussed already, especially when problems arise. Which? research in 2024 found that airlines were the third-worst sector for overall customer service. Another Which? customer satisfaction survey earlier this year found that four in 10 customers experienced problems when contacting an airline with an issue or query. The survey also found that Ryanair was the worst short-haul airline for customer satisfaction, although it is interesting to note how many people continue to use it. That is one for the business and marketing students to ponder.
In that survey, customers were asked to rate airlines on numerous factors, including whether the flight was on time, last-minute cancellations, how big the seat pitch was, seat comfort, how easy the booking process and boarding were, customer service, food and drink, cabin environment and value for money. Ryanair’s response was that the survey was “fake”—who does that remind us of?—and that nobody pays attention to these “manufactured surveys”.
For those reasons, we have tabled this passenger charter for air travel. It would provide targets on punctuality, reliability and improved onboard amenities, including in-flight wi-fi. It would also take steps to ensure that delay compensation is automatic and digital. The charter is ultimately designed to promote a customer-first approach in the aviation sector, just as we have sought to do for the railways. Poorly performing airlines such as Ryanair, which dismiss negative customer feedback as fake, could clearly use some statutory direction on how to treat their customers.
We support the principle of redesigning the skies and recognise that they need updating, but we must ensure that, in doing so, we do not leave communities on the ground suffering a bad service. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on new clause 11. Mrs McVey, with your generosity, we would like to press new clauses 8 and 11 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Passengers’ charter for air travel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter for Air Travel.
(2) A Passengers’ Charter for Air Travel must include—
(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any flight operated to, from or within the United Kingdom;
(b) targets for punctuality and reliability of air services;
(c) timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on aircraft, including in relation to—
(i) seat design and minimum seat pitch,
(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable in-flight connectivity,
(iii) provision of power outlets and USB charging points,
(iv) storage for carry-on luggage, pushchairs and prams,
(v) provision of lavatories, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and
(vi) provision of in-flight catering on any service with a total scheduled duration of at least two hours;
(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of aircraft, airports, areas immediately surrounding airports and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and alternative transport arrangements, for passengers with disabilities requiring relevant equipment such as wheelchairs;
(e) extension of the principles behind existing flight delay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities; and
(f) a commitment that air carriers will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—
(i) are digital by default;
(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation; and
(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by the carrier from a customer's booking or ticketing account.”
This new clause creates provision for a Passengers’ Charter.
Olly Glover
First, I apologise: there was an error in my notes as to the groupings and I had new clause 11 in the previous one. That is entirely my error, and I apologise to the Committee for the confusion. The good news is that the speech on new clause 11 has already been done, and the one for new clause 10 is significantly more concise—good news all round, I would suggest. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, marvellous.
New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report two years after the passage of the Act reviewing its impact on passenger protections and standards. Given the somewhat concise nature of the Bill, for which we might be grateful in the Committee but may regret in future, we feel that Parliament needs a formal mechanism by which to judge whether the Government’s promises of strengthened rights, for instance at the baggage carousel, havematerialised. The new clause would help to ensure that passenger protections and standards are not weakened as a result of the Bill. If the Minister is not minded to agree, perhaps he will say how else this legislation can be reviewed and he and his Department held to account, so that the many high expectations of clause 1 are fulfilled and delivered in.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 10, which would require a report on this legislation’s impact on passenger protections and standards two years after Royal Assent. I agree that it is important to ensure that legislation and regulation have the intended impact, but it is not necessary to include in primary legislation a requirement for a post-implementation review.
In practice, the inclusion of such review requirements must already be considered when developing secondary legislation and included where appropriate. Given that the much talked about clause 1 will give the Secretary of State the power to amend air passenger rights legislation through regulations, that would be the most suitable point at which to decide whether such a review was needed for a specific regulation and to determine its scope. In addition, a Government amendment made in the other place—clause 5(2)—requires the CAA to report annually on its use of the direct enforcement powers introduced by the Bill. Parliament will therefore receive regular, ongoing information on how the new enforcement regime is operating. As such, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw new clause 10.
I also thank him for tabling new clause 11, which would require the Government to introduce a statutory passengers’ charter for air travel. I recognise the ambition behind this new clause, but as was made clear when this proposal was considered in the other place, a statutory charter is not the right or most effective mechanism for delivering on that objective. The fundamental difficulty is how such a charter would operate in practice: if drafted broadly, it would create expectations that could not meaningfully be enforced; if drafted prescriptively, it would quickly become inflexible. Where reform is justified, targeted and evidence-based, regulation under clause 1 will offer a clearer and more effective route, allowing requirements to be introduced where there is evidence of consumer detriment, without prescribing broad service standards in primary legislation.
The new clause brings together matters that are already addressed through existing legislation and regulatory frameworks, while others are commercial decisions properly left to airlines. Established requirements cover safety, accessibility and passenger rights, and those protections can be strengthened through statutory instruments where the evidence demonstrates that change is needed. In contrast, catering, wi-fi, seat configuration, charging points and baggage allowances are ultimately commercial matters that properly sit with airlines.
Different operating models give passengers a choice between price and service. Low-cost carriers, for instance, can offer lower fares because they use higher-density seating and unbundle optional services. Imposing uniform statutory standards in these areas could reduce choice, increase costs and make affordable air travel less widely available. Nor are all the proposed commitments suitable for statutory targets. Concepts such as “value for money” and “adequate seating” are subjective, while punctuality and reliability can be affected by weather, air traffic restrictions and other factors outside an airline’s control.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Department is already developing a non-statutory accessible travel charter. That work will set clear, shared expectations for transport operators and local authorities to improve accessibility for disabled people across all modes. It is a more focused and practical response than the wide-ranging statutory charter proposed here.
In short, the new clause would duplicate existing frameworks, constrain legitimate commercial flexibility and create a risk of unintended consequences. For those reasons, I cannot support it and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 11.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I know that you, Ms McVeigh, and the Committee will be delighted to know that this will be my final speech in this Bill Committee, because the last new clause will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The end is in sight.
New clause 12 would prohibit any powers in the Bill from being used for the purposes of airport expansion. Airport expansion is an entirely valid debate to be had and, indeed, the Transport Committee is spending innumerable hours at the moment scrutinising the Heathrow expansion national policy statement. I know everyone here who is also on the Transport Committee is very much enjoying that task. The new clause would ensure that the efforts to advance airport expansion are handled appropriately, transparently and not through the back door. We have received reassurances from Ministers in the Lords that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion and we take those assurances in good faith, but the time when British politics and our constitution, if that term can be used, can be relied upon in good faith has long gone and there is no substitute for legal guarantees.
While we are glad that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Aviation Minister are still with us and hope to continue the stewardship of their Department for a long time, none of us knows the future and we do not know who will be in charge going forward. Without clear instructions written into the Bill, the public and local communities do not have reassurance that powers included here will not be used for airport expansion via the back door. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against vast, unscrutinised delegated powers that are potentially contained in this legislation.
While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition of a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister in the Lords, the noble Lord Hendy, pointed to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement as the proper avenue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in a Bill.
While we recognise that this new clause is something of a blunt tool, if the Government truly have no intention of using the powers in this Bill to facilitate airport expansion we see no reason why such a clear safeguard cannot be written into it. It is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad—we come back to the marvellous clause 1. The Bill touches everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making function. Local residents deserve the certainty that can only come from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of a regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause, which seeks to prevent the powers in the Bill from being used “in connection with” airport expansion. The reasons I cannot support this new clause are clear and the central point is straightforward: this Bill is about aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. Its measures are needed irrespective of whether an expansion proposal comes forward and irrespective of the outcome of any such proposal.
The Government have been clear that they support airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements, but such proposals must be considered through the established planning system. They are not authorised, facilitated or decided through this Bill.
That distinction is reflected in the scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, including my appearance tomorrow before the Transport Select Committee, which I very much look forward to. Airport expansion is considered through dedicated processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and Parliamentary oversight. Nothing in this Bill displaces those processes or prejudges their outcomes. The new clause would therefore not provide a meaningful safeguard against airport expansion. Instead, its broad reference to powers used “in connection with” facilitating expansion could create uncertainty well beyond any individual proposal. It could cast doubt on routine regulatory activity that neither approves nor promotes expansion, potentially constraining the effective operation of the aviation framework to no clear benefit. Put simply, in my view this new clause seeks to guard against something the Bill does not do, while risking unintended consequences for what the Bill must do. It is therefore unnecessary and could inhibit legitimate regulatory functions. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Highways (Financing) Bill
Olly Glover ExcerptsThursday 15th October 2026
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 View all Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I start by welcoming the Minister to his place. He has been blessed with the opportunity to bring another scintillating transport Bill to this House, which has clearly excited a very large number of hon. Members.
Starting with the Minister’s comments about the lower Thames crossing, which is clearly a major reason why this legislation has been laid, he is quite right to say that there is a clear need to relieve pressure on the Dartford crossings that connect the two ends of the M25 across the Thames. However, it is interesting that we seem to be assuming that traffic growth is inevitable, which is an assumption that the Government were not quite so willing to make when they opposed passenger growth targets in the Railways Bill. I make that point purely because although we of course need to cater for future increases in road demand, there is also a lot we can do to transfer that demand—both passenger and freight—to other transport modes, particularly for long-distance traffic.
In that context, while the lower Thames crossing has merit in that it will relieve the existing Thames crossings, the Government appear to be repeating the mistake of many past Labour and Conservative Governments by seeing road building as the sole answer and neglecting rail infrastructure. The channel tunnel is one of the engineering wonders of the world, yet it continues to be under-utilised, especially for rail freight—in fact, largely the rail freight does not exist, beyond lorries going on LeShuttle or whatever it is called this week. Channel tunnel use charges are one of the barriers; another is the capabilities of the UK rail network within Kent. There are well-developed plans for upgrades to the Kent conventional rail network to accommodate W12 loading gauge freight trains, and intentions to create a freight hub served by High Speed 1 at Barking, which would benefit from acceleration.
As drafted, the Bill would also give the Government significant powers to impose road tolls and charges on major roads. Introducing a new financing model for the strategic road network, while the local roads that make up 99% of the country’s roads in terms of length are facing an £18 billion repairs backlog, is an interesting choice by the Government, but let us engage directly with that choice.
There are examples of the concept of tolls and charges working well both here and abroad. Many choose to use the M6 toll road instead of the M6 despite there being a fee to pay, because it reduces some of the “road to hell” experience that the M6 often is for many. In France, motorway tolls are common, if not universal, and many European countries use a vignette system, where a driver pays for a sticker, or a digital version of that, to go on their vehicle, which enables them to use motorways and trunk roads. The advantage is that people who want to use motorways and trunk roads pay a little bit more for those roads, but people who use their car only for very local purposes do not have to pay that cost.
Olly Glover
Not all French motorways are tolled. Certain sections of them are—often the busiest sections. I will come to what the right hon. Gentleman said about what the Bill does and does not do.
The Liberal Democrats’ position is that there needs to be close attention to the detail and scrutiny of the way in which charges and tolls—like those in Europe and on the M6, which I mentioned—are implemented. However, the Bill leaves all of those questions of operation, management, oversight and regulation of tolls and charges largely undefined; they are often relegated to secondary legislation. The Government must ensure that road users are not held to ransom by licence holders, who must be properly regulated. We have seen disastrous effects in other sectors when these things have been got wrong.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) gave good examples of how a regulated asset base approach, and indeed private finance initiatives, can be used for good, but of course there are many bad examples as well. I am not sure whether too many people believe that the water industry’s use of the regulated asset base approach has been enormously successful. We certainly need regulation of private investors and to ensure that the triggers for the special administration regime defined in the legislation are not too weak. Of course, there are also many examples of public private partnerships and private finance initiatives that have not ended well, particularly with hospitals and the London underground.
Mr Francois
The hon. Member is making a very thoughtful speech. I was recently on a private holiday in Texas, being driven by a friend. In that state, there is a number of toll roads, so people have a chip attached to the windscreen that allows them to transition from public roads, as it were, to toll roads and back again, with that chip recording what they have to pay as they go from one to the other. The technology to do this already exists—I saw it with my own eyes. We are just a bit worried that the Government might be a bit too keen to adopt it.
Olly Glover
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if we are to go down that road, it needs to be transparent and done in a way that gives confidence to consumers. Car drivers and road users are consumers, and we should think of them in the same way we do customers on the railway or on planes. If such a thing is to be done, it must be done with great care and thought. That is why we need to scrutinise the legislation carefully.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Such schemes are hardly new: in London, we have had the congestion charge for many years now—[Interruption.] We have it elsewhere, too; drivers in and around our major cities are used to a charge they have to include in their budgets.
Olly Glover
Yes, London is another example of where some of these things are already happening, but the fact that they have been controversial at times is exactly why they need to be done with thought and, ideally, in a manner that avoids some of the interminable cultural wars that we must always have on every topic these days. Instead, they should be done with consensus and based on sound reason and analysis.
We are not satisfied that the Bill as drafted provides that transparency and accountability, so we will not take a view on it as a whole today. We hope that the Government will be more receptive to some of our ideas to improving the Bill at later Commons stages than perhaps they have been hitherto.
Draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Olly Glover Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.
The Liberal Democrats support this legislation. I made my first ever trip to Northern Ireland in the spring of 2023, to do work with Northern Ireland Railways as part of Translink. That network has had huge investment this century and the user base is benefitting vastly from it.
As the shadow Minister said, it has some unique features: not just its gauge but it has remained state owned throughout and is run jointly alongside state-owned buses. It also jointly operates with Irish Rail, the second, undeservedly less famous, international passenger rail service in the UK, linking Belfast with Dublin, which offers very fine views of the Irish sea coast in the Irish Republic and the Mourne mountains in Northern Ireland. I strongly recommend it for those who have not yet indulged.
The arrangements that the Minister proposes will help to continue and enhance the strong partnership working between Irish Rail and Northern Ireland Railways, which is necessary for the current cross-border line and proposals for further cross-border infrastructure in the future. As the shadow Minister said, of course, in relation to Northern Ireland and its status under the Brexit agreement, the Windsor framework, there will always be some complexities and sensitivities. I hope that the Minister will address the concerns that have been raised in his comments later.
UK Coach Industry
Olly Glover Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate and thank the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing it. She brought to the Chamber her customary passion and championing of the coach industry, of which she always makes us conscious in the Transport Committee. She articulated the distinctive requirements of the coach industry and made me aware of National Coach Week, which I confess I had not previously known was a “week”, but there are weeks on a great many topics these days.
We have heard important themes raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) highlighted the critical rural role that the coach sector can play in getting people and to and from schools. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) outlined the critical role of manufacturing for our country’s bus and coach sector, and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about his own family heritage in the coach sector. Those three hon. Members gave us an amuse-bouche of the passions that dominate Holyrood, which was very interesting for those of us who do not get there often.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) talked about the critical role that the coach plays in providing affordable travel. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), talked about the local coach companies that they have in their constituency. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) talked about the need for support and encouragement of the coach sector as a whole.
In my constituency, I have several coach companies that provide a critical service, such as Pearces coaches, now owned by the Go-Ahead Group at Thames Travel’s Didcot depot; JD Travel in Culham, which provides private hire; and Ridgeways Coaches in Wantage. Weavaway Travel is based in the next-door constituency, in Newbury, but took over the once-legendary Tappins Coaches brand, which was based in my constituency.
The economic benefits of the coach industry are hard to overstate and yet, as the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard said, we tend not to reflect on them as much as we should. Around 450 million passenger journeys are made by coach in Britain each year. Coach passengers are estimated to spend £8.3 billion annually in local economies through tourism, retail and leisure, with inbound international visitors travelling by coach contributing a further £610 million a year.
The industry estimates that a single additional coach visiting a destination each day can generate around £1 million a year for the local economy. With rail prices still generally higher than many would like, private coach operators often present an important, more affordable alternative for long-distance travel. Indeed, for inter-city rail operators, coach operators provide a vital function in the all-too-common rail replacement road service. I was on holiday in Switzerland recently and—believe it or not, fellow hon. Members—I had to go on a rail replacement bus even there, so it is not an issue unique to us. As has been said, coach travel can also be essential to providing some school transport.
There are key regulatory and economic challenges facing the coach industry. It has suffered, like so many industries, from the pressure that the last decade has placed on businesses, with uncontrollable shocks such as the pandemic, and completely self-imposed ones such as the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deals, excessive red tape and the huge delays we now see at borders for international coach travel as a result of the EU entry and exit system.
Some of the Government’s anti-business policies have further increased pressure, with raised business rates and employer national insurance contributions further threatening the coach industry’s bottom lines. Coach companies do not receive any of the fuel duty relief measures that other modes of passenger transport do. Operators want UK Government engagement with the EU on pre-registration and digital documentation for coach parties, a specific exemption for professional coach drivers from the 90/180 Schengen rule, and continued investment in port and border infrastructure to prevent repeats of the severe queuing seen in past peak periods.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, the coach sector faces severe workforce issues. The industry reports that driver shortfall stands at an estimated 5,000 to 10,000, with around 14% of driver roles currently vacant and about a quarter of the existing driver workforce aged over 60. I hope the Minister will specifically address the issue of coach drivers not being allowed to start at the age of 18. That seems particularly anomalous given recent Government announcements about the train driving age being lowered to 18. It is quite hard to see the logic and consistency, so I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on that.
On the planning system, coaches have historically been an afterthought in both local and national transport planning, regulated in practice as an afterthought to bus policy despite being a fundamentally different and deregulated commercial method of transport. That has produced a chronic shortage of coach parking, drop-off space and driver rest facilities, directly affecting operators’ ability to comply with statutory drivers’ hours rules, and has left coaches significantly absent from local transport and spatial plans. Industry bodies are calling for coaches to be recognised as a distinct mode in planning guidance, for motorway service areas to be required to prioritise coach parking and driver facilities, and for more standardised local authority procurement to reduce the administrative burden on operators bidding for home-to-school and other contracted work.
Coaches are also an important consideration in improving integrated transport policy. Whether coach operators are given access to major urban bus stations is highly inconsistent, with local authorities and owners and operators of those bus terminals making very different decisions on whether to grant access to national coach operators.
Accessibility remains a challenge. The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 require coaches in scope to be fully wheelchair accessible, but in practice that depends on kerbside infrastructure just as much as the capability of the coaches. Level ground of up to 4 metres is needed, which does not exist at many locations coaches serve. That means vehicles can be technically compliant while still failing to deliver a reliably accessible journey. The accessibility equipment required also adds weight and takes up capacity that could otherwise carry passengers, so the sector’s ask is for a shift from a vehicle-focused compliance regime towards a whole journey accessibility framework covering booking, boarding infrastructure and arrival, developed jointly with local authorities, operators and disability groups.
As the hon. Member for Falkirk said, decarbonisation is a challenge for this sector. Unlike cars and vans, coaches are not currently covered by the zero emission vehicle mandate, and no equivalent statutory trajectory or long-term support and road map exists for the sector. Zero emission coaches face a much harder technical challenge than buses or cars, with longer average journeys increasing the importance of range and refuelling infrastructure, with charging and hydrogen infrastructure suitable for coaches largely non-existent on the motorway and major A-road networks. Industry data suggests that roughly three quarters of coach operators currently have no plan to introduce zero emission vehicles, citing high up-front costs and insufficient range as the main barriers. The sector is asking Government to publish a long-delayed low-carbon fuel strategy, to extend infrastructure trials such as a zero emission and hydrogen infrastructure demonstrator to coaches on a similar footing to heavy goods vehicles, and to consider an interim fuel duty incentive for low-carbon fuels to bridge the gap until zero emission coaches are commercially viable at scale.
We have heard today of the vital role that coaches play, whether as a long-distance public transport offer, helping children to get to school or enabling groups of people old and young to access tourism, hospitality, culture and so on. Coaches have not been supported or given enough attention. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard is moving us on the journey and I hope the Minister will say what more can be done to recognise and support this critical sector.